The world is changing, but education isn't. Why?

[dust1n]

Why is school so slow to change? Why does it seem to be a low priority, as opposed, to say, terrorism?

[youtube]zDZFcDGpL4U[/youtube]
RSA Animate - Changing Education Paradigms - YouTube

[youtube]9M4tdMsg3ts[/youtube]
Valedictorian Speaks Out Against Schooling - YouTube

[youtube]y_ZmM7zPLyI[/youtube]
Why I Hate School But Love Education||Spoken Word - YouTube

 

[LuisDantas]

One of the reasons is because people don't usually like to think about differences in educational levels. For one thing, they cause hard and conflicting feelings inside families.

 

[dust1n]

One of the reasons is because people don't usually like to think about differences in educational levels. For one thing, they cause hard and conflicting feelings inside families.

That's incredibly bad. We need to ditch the notion immediately that age is in any way a signifier for the level of education one should be at.

 

[xkatz]

Because our educational system (at least in the Western societies) is largely antiquated and based on a system that's been used since the medieval period. The problem with it is:

1)It emphasizes heavily on memorization of facts and examinations as opposed to critical thinking, creativity, and actual learning.

2)In regard to the university system, when it first existed, only a few people pursued going to one; now, we have a many more attending universities, thus we have a sort of educational "inflation", making some degrees worth less than they used to be.

3)Not everyone fits in the same mold in regards to education. Not everyone learns the same way or even at the same rate yet schools want everyone to learn pretty much the same thing and at the same rate.

4)Relevant to previous points, another major problem (especially in K-12), is that it does not emphasize at all on individuality but rather obedience to authority (which in some cases is alright, but that has it's limits) and not questioning what people in authority tell you.

 

[Quintessence]

That's incredibly bad. We need to ditch the notion immediately that age is in any way a signifier for the level of education one should be at.

What alternative do you propose? Additionally, how will this be balanced with other facets of the person that may not be on the same level as a child's capacity for learning, such as social skills or emotional discipline? How might pushing some people through the education system faster influence society more broadly in terms of socioeconomic status and labor laws? There are many of nuances to consider here before ditching the idea of grouping children by age in the education system, I think.

I ask these questions part because I was one of those kids who could have skipped a couple of grades. My parents decided not to do this because my capacity for learning simply wasn't in the same place as other aspects of my person. Instead, I was encouraged to participate in extended learning programs and after school activities that provided me with additional opportunities. It seems that these kinds of programs are a good compromise, though I hear that many of them have been cut since my tenure in the K-12 system.

 

[Quintessence]

Because our educational system (at least in the Western societies) is largely antiquated and based on a system that's been used since the medieval period.

I wish we could get an actual educator in here to clarify on these issues, because my knowledge here is more ancillary from working around educators, but most of the things you've presented in your list below don't seem to represent contemporary education techniques at all. I would caveat that by saying, however, that education standards across the country are not uniform and that this is part of the problem, so my experiences in the education system and with educators in my area might be different from your area. At any rate, a few specific comments....

1)It emphasizes heavily on memorization of facts and examinations as opposed to critical thinking, creativity, and actual learning.

The bitter irony is that many educators opposed "No Child Left Behind" precisely because it increases focus on things that are easy to measure on a standardized test like what you list above. Educators haven't wanted to place a heavy emphasis on this for quite some time, but keep getting force-snapped into doing so because of attempts to standardize and regulate education. The amount of emphasis placed on rote memorization has varied tremendously by the teacher as well as by the subject and the course level. Relatively few of my experiences in education would I characterize as heavily emphasizing fact memorization as opposed to critical thinking. Those that do were groundwork courses, and there's no way around the need to develop the proper vocabulary of a discipline through memorizing specific bits of information. You need that knowledge base to be able to think critically about the material in the first place, and as you go up the chain in the course numbers, there's more emphasis placed on synthesis.

2)In regard to the university system, when it first existed, only a few people pursued going to one; now, we have a many more attending universities, thus we have a sort of educational "inflation", making some degrees worth less than they used to be.

Evaluation of "worth" is a complex and somewhat subjective issue. In my mind, degrees are not at all worth less than they used to be. Education is valuable for its own sake, regardless of how many people are doing it. I don't view it as a competition.

3)Not everyone fits in the same mold in regards to education. Not everyone learns the same way or even at the same rate yet schools want everyone to learn pretty much the same thing and at the same rate.

It's my understanding that educators are quite aware of this and have been for a long while. How much effort a teacher makes to accommodate different learning styles depends on the individual teacher, but can also be impacted by external factors like classroom size and time allotment. I think we have to keep in mind that our education system is not designed to serve individual students, but to produce a large number of educated citizens. In this, it does an excellent job, but it does mean certain sacrifices have to be made for the sake of group-oriented education. If you want a personalized education, you have to get a private mentor and exclusively a one-on-one experience. Otherwise, educators do the best they can to accommodate this, but they have to keep in mind what works best for the largest number of students they're responsible for, right?

4)Relevant to previous points, another major problem (especially in K-12), is that it does not emphasize at all on individuality but rather obedience to authority (which in some cases is alright, but that has it's limits) and not questioning what people in authority tell you.

You must have had a very different childhood education experience than I did, because this was not my experience at all. Regardless, obeying authority is an important social skill that is necessary for anyone living in contemporary society, so I don't see what the problem is here. Every single child needs to learn to do what they're told. That's part of growing up. So is finding the right and proper times to question, which is more of a socialization/cultural issue rather than an education issue.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Why is school so slow to change? Why does it seem to be a low priority, as opposed, to say, terrorism?

[youtube]zDZFcDGpL4U[/youtube]
RSA Animate - Changing Education Paradigms - YouTube

[youtube]9M4tdMsg3ts[/youtube]
Valedictorian Speaks Out Against Schooling - YouTube

[youtube]y_ZmM7zPLyI[/youtube]
Why I Hate School But Love Education||Spoken Word - YouTube

In America anyway its because keeping education from moving forward helps the right wing.

 

[xkatz]

Evaluation of "worth" is a complex and somewhat subjective issue. In my mind, degrees are not at all worth less than they used to be. Education is valuable for its own sake, regardless of how many people are doing it. I don't view it as a competition.

I agree. I am not saying that people should stop going to college and pursuing an education, but when you have the majority people getting bachelors degrees only to work at entry level jobs that were originally meant for high school grads, I think there is a flaw in the system.

 

[Kalidas]

I wish we could get an actual educator in here to clarify on these issues, because my knowledge here is more ancillary from working around educators, but most of the things you've presented in your list below don't seem to represent contemporary education techniques at all. I would caveat that by saying, however, that education standards across the country are not uniform and that this is part of the problem, so my experiences in the education system and with educators in my area might be different from your area. At any rate, a few specific comments....

Well you are in luck (kind of )

I am going to school to become a special ed teacher and am a substitute instructional aide for my school system, I have even ran a class room, and will be trying for a pre-school teacher job soon. I don't have my degree YET but that is coming soon, like my last year at my community college soon.

first that RSA animation video is AMAZING I have seen it like 6 times in my classes, and outlines MANY of our problems

1st Yes we are using an old class room model that does not apply anymore. Our school model was used during a time when children worked and we taught enough for them to work and had jobs to get to. This NOT what we are doing now and why this model hasn't changed but has actually gotten worse (no child left behind my ***) is depressing.

2nd NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND! This is the the SINGLE greatest tragedy to befall our education EVER! It goes completely against anything we know about education. We KNOW for a fact there are many time of learning styles NCLB expects all children to learn the same way. We KNOW for a fact children learn far better (roughly 60% increase) by hand on learning, NCLB has children doing idiotic busy work. Also if the children don't do well their school LOSES money, WTF!! Please explain this logic to me? these children need help, they are not grasping BASIC concepts, and are probably in an already poor schooling system with little money to begin helping these children in the first place...TAKE MORE MONEY AWAY THAT'LL TEACH THOSE PUNKS! American politicians have got to be the dumbest (or most evil geniuses) when it comes to education. NCLB ruins the art of teaching. You would be amazed with the things teachers could get children into and the creative ways of doing it. But when the government tells you to do things this way or lose funding (and possibly your job) your stuck teaching children how to fill out a scan-tron and what facts to remember (that they WILL forget as soon as the test is done). Thus the children begin to hate education and the educators begin to hate education and they feed off each others hate. Later these children grow up to become bitter uneducated adults who tell their kids that education is a waste of time, thus the cycle NEVER ENDS!

3. Tracking, tracking, tracking. We "track" out children. Basically if we THINK they are going to fail we place them in "help" classes. These classes have far lower expectations, weaker teachers (not all teachers are good) and far a lower success rate. Which then reaffirms that we were "right" "see they failed! Next time a kid is like that we do the same thing see he failed!" It's called self fulfilling prophesy and its ********. How about we I don't know hold our children to the same standards. I don't mean teach them the same (we need to learn how each child learns) I don't mean children who learn slower shouldn't receive help (they need more help) but they all should be expected to learn the same. I have more but I have to go people here are being *** holes

 

[Tarheeler]

I had a lot of issues in school growing up. I was one of those kids that got so bored with memorizing things and spitting them back that I caused trouble. The only classes that I excelled in were the ones that required a lot of independent thinking.

While I understand the idea behind standardized testing, I think they have been used to truly screw up our school systems. Making sure that kids are progressing in a subject is great, but in many areas teachers simply "teach to the test". They concentrate only on the anticipated test score, and fail to teach our children to learn, analyze, or to use the knowledge.

When I finally made it to college (12 years after graduating high school), I was surprised at the disdain my professors had for standardized tests. The only place I saw a scantron was in biology class. The vast majority of my professors relied solely on essay exams to gauge our progress and understanding of the subject matter.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Public education has failed to produce graduates that can go out and find gainful employment when they leave.

Colleges are guilty of this as well.

When a child leaves High School and can not even balance a check book or read long hand or even sign their name, much less know what 20% of a dinner check is, we have failed them.

Most do not even know their left hand from their right or which way to turn a screw clock wise or counter clock wise.

Reading fractions on a tape measure escapes them and most are unable to show us where China is on a world map.

The worst thing I believe is they can't even figure out a budget which would tell them that they cannot live on a minimum wage job. Why they would even attempt this is beyond me.

They lack the basic people skills to look someone in the eye when they shake their hand and write a basic resume to get considered for better employment.

With all the computers and smart phones they have, they cannot network effectively.

I believe our public school system does nothing more than baby sit them and should be abolished.

We should teach our children how to think, not what to think. Most are nothing but indoctrinated drones all spewing the same lame excuses for their failure and looking for the next hand out.

Where are the kids who have a thought of their own that flies against their peers way of thinking?

 

[Kalidas]

Public education has failed to produce graduates that can go out and find gainful employment when they leave.

Colleges are guilty of this as well.

When a child leaves High School and can not even balance a check book or read long hand or even sign their name, much less know what 20% of a dinner check is, we have failed them.

Most do not even know their left hand from their right or which way to turn a screw clock wise or counter clock wise.

Reading fractions on a tape measure escapes them and most are unable to show us where China is on a world map.

The worst thing I believe is they can't even figure out a budget which would tell them that they cannot live on a minimum wage job. Why they would even attempt this is beyond me.

They lack the basic people skills to look someone in the eye when they shake their hand and write a basic resume to get considered for better employment.

With all the computers and smart phones they have, they cannot network effectively.

I believe our public school system does nothing more than baby sit them and should be abolished.

We should teach our children how to think, not what to think. Most are nothing but indoctrinated drones all spewing the same lame excuses for their failure and looking for the next hand out.

Where are the kids who have a thought of their own that flies against their peers way of thinking?

Now for my CONSPIRACY THEORIES! I think they do it on purpose! Keep people complacent, stupid, dependent, unquestioning. People that think for them selves are dangerous to the status quo.

 

[LuisDantas]

Myself, I'm inclined to believe accomodation and lack of habit of having true commitment to society plays a large role.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

a long long time ago in the 40's and 50's........................
My school streamed pupils by intake year, ability stream. and subject level sets. ( most of us had individual timetables)
Even this was not strictly followed. some ten percent of pupils were raised an intake level during their first term. I was raised to the top stream at 16 so they were clearly monitoring our progress. I had been in the top sets from the start, except for languages. so I had been in classes with the top stream for most subjects all along.

Sadly to day, few school can afford that degree of refinement.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I wish we could get an actual educator in here to clarify on these issues, because my knowledge here is more ancillary from working around educators, but most of the things you've presented in your list below don't seem to represent contemporary education techniques at all.

Dun dunna dunNA, dun dun dun dun DUNNA...
(erm...that was supposed to be like Batman music or something).

I'm an actual educator! Well, I was. It's my professional background, and a lot of my friends still are.

first that RSA animation video is AMAZING I have seen it like 6 times in my classes, and outlines MANY of our problems

Yep, it's one of my favourites.

1st Yes we are using an old class room model that does not apply anymore. Our school model was used during a time when children worked and we taught enough for them to work and had jobs to get to. This NOT what we are doing now and why this model hasn't changed but has actually gotten worse (no child left behind my ***) is depressing.

Erm...I'm not really sure why you asked for 'an actual educator'. You seem to have a handle on it already...
[edit] Okay...so I realise now it wasn't you that asked for an 'actual educator'... [/edit]

2nd NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND! This is the the SINGLE greatest tragedy to befall our education EVER! It goes completely against anything we know about education. We KNOW for a fact there are many time of learning styles NCLB expects all children to learn the same way. We KNOW for a fact children learn far better (roughly 60% increase) by hand on learning, NCLB has children doing idiotic busy work. Also if the children don't do well their school LOSES money, WTF!! Please explain this logic to me? these children need help, they are not grasping BASIC concepts, and are probably in an already poor schooling system with little money to begin helping these children in the first place...TAKE MORE MONEY AWAY THAT'LL TEACH THOSE PUNKS! American politicians have got to be the dumbest (or most evil geniuses) when it comes to education. NCLB ruins the art of teaching. You would be amazed with the things teachers could get children into and the creative ways of doing it. But when the government tells you to do things this way or lose funding (and possibly your job) your stuck teaching children how to fill out a scan-tron and what facts to remember (that they WILL forget as soon as the test is done). Thus the children begin to hate education and the educators begin to hate education and they feed off each others hate. Later these children grow up to become bitter uneducated adults who tell their kids that education is a waste of time, thus the cycle NEVER ENDS!

I'm Australian, so whilst the broad thrust of our education is pretty similar in model, the funding models, etc, are obviously entirely different. I've read a bit about NCLB, and I found it depressing. It seems to be entirely the opposite to how I think about education. You ask most (or at least, 'many') dedicated educators why they got into education, and there has been a difference maker in their life. An educator that was able to inspire them, or someone they could look up to. For me, there was a maths/science/IT teacher who thought COMPLETELY outside the box...there seems to be a push to make every classroom the same, and this is likely to drive innovation out. But, I would be the first to admit I only have a limited understanding on NCLB. Suffice to say your points about learning styles, etc make perfect sense.

A major study on education was just undertaken over here. The teachers seem to cherry-pick the parts which will improve their jobs, as opposed to education, and reaction amongst academics has been mixed. The problem with the studies generally is that they are then implemented by government, which tends to think in terms of accountability, funding models, etc. These things are absolutely important, but they can dilute the educational thrust unless handled sensibly, and with understanding of the field.

http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf

I personally have a massive issue with the level of understanding at a Departmental level, let alone a Government level.

3. Tracking, tracking, tracking. We "track" out children. Basically if we THINK they are going to fail we place them in "help" classes. These classes have far lower expectations, weaker teachers (not all teachers are good) and far a lower success rate. Which then reaffirms that we were "right" "see they failed! Next time a kid is like that we do the same thing see he failed!" It's called self fulfilling prophesy and its ********. How about we I don't know hold our children to the same standards. I don't mean teach them the same (we need to learn how each child learns) I don't mean children who learn slower shouldn't receive help (they need more help) but they all should be expected to learn the same. I have more but I have to go people here are being *** holes

Not all teachers are good. IN fact, inspiring teachers is increasingly tough. More and more social issues are impinging on school, parents are more demanding, since each seems to think their child deserves the majority of a teachers attention, and if a teacher is brave enough to tackle a school in a poorer socio-economic area, they are often performing a far more difficult job for the same pay as a teacher in a well-off socio-economic area.

Meh...anyways...
From my point of view the whole model needs a rethink, but it's not simple, and it shouldn't be stated as such. I got frustrated enough in 4 years teaching that I left the profession. I was actually a pretty good teacher, if I do say so myself, but there are so many petty-minded people involved in teaching, it drove me bat-guano crazy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The bitter irony is that many educators opposed "No Child Left Behind" precisely because it increases focus on things that are easy to measure on a standardized test like what you list above. Educators haven't wanted to place a heavy emphasis on this for quite some time, but keep getting force-snapped into doing so because of attempts to standardize and regulate education. The amount of emphasis placed on rote memorization has varied tremendously by the teacher as well as by the subject and the course level. Relatively few of my experiences in education would I characterize as heavily emphasizing fact memorization as opposed to critical thinking. Those that do were groundwork courses, and there's no way around the need to develop the proper vocabulary of a discipline through memorizing specific bits of information. You need that knowledge base to be able to think critically about the material in the first place, and as you go up the chain in the course numbers, there's more emphasis placed on synthesis.

:yes:

Evaluation of "worth" is a complex and somewhat subjective issue. In my mind, degrees are not at all worth less than they used to be. Education is valuable for its own sake, regardless of how many people are doing it. I don't view it as a competition.

It would be nice for governments to acknowledge that evaluation of worth is a complex and somewhat subjective issue. Instead, they seem determined to be able to quantify it via standardised testing. How this prepares students for...erm...anything (other than further school in the same system) is completely beyond me. And I mean COMPLETELY beyond me. This is the antithesis of education, but the focus of education systems seemingly across the Western World.

It's my understanding that educators are quite aware of this and have been for a long while. How much effort a teacher makes to accommodate different learning styles depends on the individual teacher, but can also be impacted by external factors like classroom size and time allotment. I think we have to keep in mind that our education system is not designed to serve individual students, but to produce a large number of educated citizens. In this, it does an excellent job, but it does mean certain sacrifices have to be made for the sake of group-oriented education. If you want a personalized education, you have to get a private mentor and exclusively a one-on-one experience. Otherwise, educators do the best they can to accommodate this, but they have to keep in mind what works best for the largest number of students they're responsible for, right?

Any half-decent educator is well aware of the diversity in learning styles, and the necessity of teaching to these. It's always a challenge, but in my mind, the key is not to try and teach all subject matter via all methods, but to ensure all methods are used throughout the lesson planning. It is important to strengthen kids where they are weak, but there will ALWAYS be a propensity for people to learn in certain ways. Have a think of your own learning now...you'll have a preferred method.

Eg. I can learn in a variety of ways, but I tend to learn fastest visually. IN my industry (IT), than means business process diagrams work better for me than textual descriptions. But I don't always have a choice, so it's important that I can sift through and comprehend swathes of text. I'll often make scribbly little visual notes as I do it.
So educationally, someone like me needs the chance to build on their non-visual skills, and also use the skills they feel most confident and competent with.

You must have had a very different childhood education experience than I did, because this was not my experience at all. Regardless, obeying authority is an important social skill that is necessary for anyone living in contemporary society, so I don't see what the problem is here. Every single child needs to learn to do what they're told. That's part of growing up. So is finding the right and proper times to question, which is more of a socialization/cultural issue rather than an education issue.

Hmmm...I agree, but only up to a point.
I actually think that it's a relic of the industrial age, in a lot of ways, to have an obedient student body as a goal. But I know what you mean. One of the issues as a teacher is that you need to somehow manage the room, and provide a safe and supportive teaching environment before you can teach.

IN order to do this, you need to have a certain amount of obedience. As a teacher, I expected the kids I taught (and I was a primary teacher) to listen when I spoke, and to do what they were told.
My obligation in this partnership (and if it's not run as a partnership, you're screwed) was to speak to the kids with respect, and to always explain the reasons for my decisions and 'commands'. We all spoke about what the rules of the room should be, and why, so the kids were invested in the basic parameters (the laws, if you will...we're trying to make effective members of society, and they need to feel they are part of the decision making process).

So...in simple terms, when I said something, they needed to do it. I was happy with questions, but they needed to understand that there might be times we wouldn't be able to tackle the answers immediately. But I would tackle the answers.

Hmm...I'm rambling. Lessee...
The best way to produce productive and invested members of society is to treat them as members and partners within the microcosm of the school. So, do you want an obedient populace in the country? No..I wouldn't have thought so. But you want one who operates within the laws of the land, and is respectful of difference, and tolerant.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I say make the arts as important a focus as the sciences, the maths, and reading comprehension. As basics.

This coming from your friendly neighborhood arts educator. :yes:

 

[dust1n]

What alternative do you propose?

Thanks for asking.

I would imagine some sort of system that adequately distinguishes between various types of learners, or perhaps classed centered on acceleration.

Heck, we can do random right now between any 4 year group and it would be similarly arbitrary.

Additionally, how will this be balanced with other facets of the person that may not be on the same level as a child's capacity for learning, such as social skills or emotional discipline?

This is just my guess, but I would imagine social skills to improve as a kid interacts with others from different age groups, possibly looking to older classmates as role models.

How might pushing some people through the education system faster influence society more broadly in terms of socioeconomic status and labor laws?

Labor laws? What would change their?

But socioeconomic status; I don't know. I would think that intelligent kids would be less held back by a challenging background? What do you think would happen?

 

[dust1n]

a long long time ago in the 40's and 50's........................
My school streamed pupils by intake year, ability stream. and subject level sets. ( most of us had individual timetables)
Even this was not strictly followed. some ten percent of pupils were raised an intake level during their first term. I was raised to the top stream at 16 so they were clearly monitoring our progress. I had been in the top sets from the start, except for languages. so I had been in classes with the top stream for most subjects all along.

Sadly to day, few school can afford that degree of refinement.

Whoa. Is that the public system? What are these streams and how does a student move up in them?

 

[Vinayaka]

Because our educational system (at least in the Western societies) is largely antiquated and based on a system that's been used since the medieval period. The problem with it is:

1)It emphasizes heavily on memorization of facts and examinations as opposed to critical thinking, creativity, and actual learning.

2)In regard to the university system, when it first existed, only a few people pursued going to one; now, we have a many more attending universities, thus we have a sort of educational "inflation", making some degrees worth less than they used to be.

3)Not everyone fits in the same mold in regards to education. Not everyone learns the same way or even at the same rate yet schools want everyone to learn pretty much the same thing and at the same rate.

4)Relevant to previous points, another major problem (especially in K-12), is that it does not emphasize at all on individuality but rather obedience to authority (which in some cases is alright, but that has it's limits) and not questioning what people in authority tell you.

I was an educator from about 1980 until 2010. We tried very hard to rid the education system of all of these outmoded practices, not always successfully, I admit. When is the last time you were in a school? The last few years I spent a couple of days at the beginning of the school year writing IPPs. (Individualized Program Plans) Many of the old guard objected.

I certainly emphasized individuality, as did many others. But what you say may have some merit in some places. I met a former student a few weeks back, who is now 23 or so. She said to me, "The other teachers tried to change me, but you accepted me for who I was, and tried to work with that." Some others saw her as a bossy little girl, whereas I saw her as a kid with great leadership potential, given a bit of help.

Critical thinking? Of course. Take a look at any basal reader and look at the questions. Bloom's taxonomy is written all over it. Of course we tried to get kids to think and problem solve.

I agree with point 3 to some degree, and think there should be earlier choosing towards skilled trades in particular. Not all kids are cut out to be academics, and they could blossom in pre-apprentrice electrician courses, as an example.

But frankly, here where I live, the most inhibiting factor for change is cost. The government doesn't want to spend the money it might take.